M/S.Visa Steel LTD. vs. Sales Tax Officer

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Visa Steel Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 19, 2018, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Jajpur Circle. This order rejected the Petitioner's claim for a refund for the period of April 1, 2017, to June 30, 2017, under Section 35(4)(c) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999, read with Rule 30(3)(d) of the Odisha Entry Tax Rules, 1999. The Petitioner contended that while the order was revisable, a circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on January 7, 2017, regarding refund applications rendered a revision petition futile. The Opposite Parties, represented by the Sales Tax Department, argued that the impugned order was not passed pursuant to that circular and that the revisional authority was the Additional Commissioner, who would consider the petition on its merits.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the refund claim. Instead, it directed the Petitioner to file a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by May 3, 2021. The Court stated that any explanation offered by the Petitioner for the delay in filing the revision petition, attributable to the pendency of the writ petition, would be considered by the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner was further directed to dispose of the revision petition on its own merits by August 2, 2021. This direction was to be followed notwithstanding the circular issued by the Commissioner, which the Opposite Parties described as merely clarificatory. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the core issue of the refund's validity was deferred to the revisional authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's claim for refund for the period from April 1, 2017, to June 30, 2017, as rejected by the Sales Tax Officer, Jajpur Circle, is legally tenable under Section 35(4)(c) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999, read with Rule 30(3)(d) of the Odisha Entry Tax Rules, 1999? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that a circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on January 7, 2017, concerning the processing of refund applications, made pursuing a revision petition before the Commissioner a futile exercise, implying the order might have been passed in contravention of or without considering this circular. Opposite Parties' contention: The Opposite Parties contended that the impugned order was not passed pursuant to the mentioned circular. They further argued that the appropriate revisional authority was the Additional Commissioner, not the Commissioner, and that the Additional Commissioner would consider the revision petition on its merits, irrespective of the circular.